Re:Merideth's T debate

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

Since the definitions are pretty much the same, it all boils down to whether
the aff mets or not.

Neg has 2 stds (each word & F/X illegit) for defining the better definition. 

Aff offers 2 c/stds (reasonability & brite line).

Since it is the standards debate that becomes important, I will only go
there. Neg mis-analizes the brite line test and IMHO loses the T debate
because of it. Aff claims that neg never offers a brite line for what would
be a "substantial" change and what wouldn't. They have a definition, but it
offers no further insight into the amgiguity of the term (IE: is x enough of
a change, is y enough, or do you have to have z?). Absent the answer to this
by neg, I have no idea if aff is on the side of substantial or
not-substantial since I do not know where the line is drawn. For all I know,
immigration may be 100% of our foreign policy. It is the negs job to show me
where the line is drawn so that I may know if aff fails to cross it.

So, if the brite line test is applied to the 2AC answer that they are a 180
degree change from the SQ, then aff is topical.

Oh, thanks for the practice for this weekend. I'm sure I'll be hearing lots
of T debates.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: 1996 topic area
• Next by Date: Military in da Spring
• Prev by thread: Re: spring topic
• Next by thread: Military in da Spring
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page